METHODS AND RESULTS: A detailed questionnaire was distributed to 28 highly-experienced interventional cardiologists ('Authors') from 13 Asia-Pacific countries. The results were discussed at a meeting on patient selection, technical consideration, deployment practices and patient management. Potential patient benefits of Absorb compared to metallic DES, the learning curve for patient selection and preparation, device deployment, and subsequent patient management approaches are presented.
CONCLUSIONS: Current practices are derived from guidelines optimized for European patients. Differences in approach exist in the Asia-Pacific context, including limited access to imaging and frequency of occurrence of complex lesions. Nevertheless, the use of the Absorb BVS ('Absorb') in certain Asia-Pacific countries has flourished and practices here are continuing to mature.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to characterize the care pathway of post-MI patients and understand barriers to referral for further SCD risk stratification and management in patients meeting referral criteria.
METHODS: This prospective, nonrandomized, multi-nation study included patients ≥18 years of age, with an acute MI ≤30 days and left ventricular ejection fraction <50% ≤14 days post-MI. The primary endpoint was defined as the physician's decision to refer a patient for SCD stratification and management.
RESULTS: In total, 1,491 post-MI patients were enrolled (60.2 ± 12.0 years of age, 82.4% male). During the study, 26.7% (n = 398) of patients met criteria for further SCD risk stratification; however, only 59.3% of those meeting criteria (n = 236; 95% CI: 54.4%-64.0%) were referred for a visit. Of patients referred for SCD risk stratification and management, 94.9% (n = 224) attended the visit of which 56.7% (n =127; 95% CI: 50.1%-63.0%) met ICD indication criteria. Of patients who met ICD indication criteria, 14.2% (n = 18) were implanted.
CONCLUSIONS: We found that ∼40% of patients meeting criteria were not referred for further SCD risk stratification and management and ∼85% of patients who met ICD indications did not receive a guideline-directed ICD. Physician and patient reasons for refusing referral to SCD risk stratification and management or ICD implant varied by geography suggesting that improvement will require both physician- and patient-focused approaches. (Improve Sudden Cardiac Arrest [SCA] Bridge Study; NCT03715790).